Skip to main content

Mere confession cannot be basis for filing chargesheet: Madras HC

Holding that mere confession in the absence of evidence cannot be the basis for filing chargesheet, Madras High Court has quashed a murder case against a man, charged with killing his wife, and six others, accused of abetting it.


The accused need not be made to go through the rigour of trial, as the entire case had been built on mere confessions made by key suspects to police, Justice R S Ramanathan said allowing a petition by the accused seeking quashing of the case in a magistrate court.

"Charge sheet cannot be filed against the accused solely on the basis of confession, which does not lead to recovery (of evidence). In this case, except the confession, there is no recovery. Therefore, the confession cannot be the basis for conviction, even accepting it as true," the Judge ruled.

Quoting Supreme Court verdicts, he said "When the confession does not lead to recovery, the confession is inadmissible in law, and the chargesheet based on such confession has no legal basis, and is liable to be quashed."

According to police, Natarajan had developed intimacy with another woman, and murdered his wife Vijayalakshmi, in order to marry his paramour.

Besides Natarajan, police had arraigned his parents, sister, brother-in-law and paternal uncle as accused, apparently for having tried to tamper with evidence by destroying mobile phone and personal belongings of the victim.

Chargesheet for murder and abetment was filed against the accused before the judicial magistrate court in Paramathi in Namakkal District.

Counsel for the accused submitted that except the confessions of Natarajan and his mother, no other incriminating statements or evidence had been obtained by police, and other evidence like mobile phone too had not been recovered by police.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/mere-confession-cannot-be-basis-for-filing-chargesheet-madras-hc_1565131.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more